931–940 of 1001 posts
Looks to me like, one pro-board member in Adam d Angelo, one pro Sam in Brett Taylor since they’ve been pushing for him since Sunday so I’m assuming Sam and rest of OpenAI leadership really like him and 1 Neutral in Larry Summers who has never worked in AI and is just a well respected name in general. I’m sure Larry was extensively interviewed and reference checked by both sides of this power struggle before they agr…
With Sam coming back as CEO, hasn't OpenAI board proven that it has lost its function? Regardless of who is in the board, they won't be able to exercise one of the most fundamental of their rights, firing the CEO, because Sam has proven that he is unfireable. Now, Sam can do however he pleases, whether it is lying, not reporting, etc. To be clear, I don't claim that Sam did, or will, lie, or misbehave.
How did you get there? The board did fire him, they exercised their right.
As it's within the board's rights to hire or fire people like Sam or the developers.
Some perspective ... One developer (Ilya) vs. One businessman (Sam) -> Sam wins Hundreds of developers threaten to quit vs. Board of Directors (biz) refuse to budge -> Developers win From the outside it looks like developers held the power all along ... which is how it should be.
Are you sure Ilya was the root of this. He backed it and then signed the pledge to quit if it wasn't undone. What's the evidence he was behind it and not D'Angelo?
This is Altman's playbook. He did a similar ousting at Reddit. This was planned all along to overturn the board. Ilya was in on it.
I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist. But fool me ... you can't be fooled again. As they say in Tennessee
Seeing a bug in your comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38382563
You reference the pages like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239?p=2
The second ? should be an & like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239&p=2
Please feel free to delete this message after you've received it.
Some perspective ... One developer (Ilya) vs. One businessman (Sam) -> Sam wins Hundreds of developers threaten to quit vs. Board of Directors (biz) refuse to budge -> Developers win From the outside it looks like developers held the power all along ... which is how it should be.
Yes, 95% agreement in any company is unprecedented but: 1. They can get equivalent position and pay at the new Microsoft startup during that time, so their jobs are not at risk. 2. Sam approved each hire in the first place. 3. OpenAI is selecting for the type of people who want to work at a non-profit with a goal in mind instead of another company that could offer higher compensation. Mission driven vs profit driven.…
Maybe that was the case at some point, but clearly not anymore ever since the release of ChatGPT. Or did you not see them offer completely absurd compensation packages, i.e. to engineers leaving Google?
I'd bet more than half the people are just there for the money.
Some perspective ... One developer (Ilya) vs. One businessman (Sam) -> Sam wins Hundreds of developers threaten to quit vs. Board of Directors (biz) refuse to budge -> Developers win From the outside it looks like developers held the power all along ... which is how it should be.
Disappointed by the outcome, but perhaps mission-driven AI development -- the reason OpenAI was founded -- was never possible.
Edit: I applaud the board members for (apparently, it seems) trying to stand up for the mission (aka doing the job that they were put on the board to do), even if their efforts were doomed.
Some perspective ... One developer (Ilya) vs. One businessman (Sam) -> Sam wins Hundreds of developers threaten to quit vs. Board of Directors (biz) refuse to budge -> Developers win From the outside it looks like developers held the power all along ... which is how it should be.
It's clear most employees didn't care much about OpenAI's mission -- and I don't blame them since they were hired by the __for-profit__ OpenAI company and therefore aligned with __its__ goals and rewarded with equity.
In my view the board did the right thing to stand by OpenAI's original mission -- which now clearly means nothing. Too bad they lost out.
One might say the mission was pointless since Google, Meta, MSFT would develop it anyway. That's really a convenience argument that has been used in arms races (if we don't build lots of nuclear weapons, others will build lots of nuclear weapons) and leads to ... well, where we are today :(
If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.
Google, Meta and now OpenAI. So long, responsible and safety AI guardrails. Hello, big money. Disappointed by the outcome, but perhaps mission-driven AI development -- the reason OpenAI was founded -- was never possible. Edit: I applaud the board members for (apparently, it seems) trying to stand up for the mission (aka doing the job that they were put on the board to do), even if their efforts were doomed.